Nader, the Election of 2000, the Media Thereafter

[liberalmike27]

I find it amazing how people here obsess about Nader's 2000 run for president. People willingly gave their votes to him, and it is each person's choice who they vote for. But most of all, I find it ridiculous that so much time and effort is directed at trashing Ralph Nader, and incorrectly characterizing him as an ego-maniac, while ignoring the real story of the 2000 election.

For anyone who's done any research, from the Bush brothers running for governor leading up to 2000 in the 90's all the way to the election in Florida, you know the election was stolen, not by the thin margin of five-hundred votes, but perhaps by tens of thousands of votes. This should be the focus of your ire, not a guy who probably holds more of your positions and speaks out loudly for them not shying away like many of the establishment democrats.

After that, another source of outrageous behavior far worse than Nader, the media's coverage, or lack thereof. Think about it, the biggest story in American history, Jeb Bush and Kathy Harris actually deliberately set-about to fix an election, they purge 90,000 voters for supposed felonies, they get one of the lists from Texas (who was governor there, hmmm...) and later it was found only about 5% were actual felons. Kathy Harris went out of her way to get the company who did the purges to not verify who was purged. All of this very obvious manipulation, and no coverage after the election, only a bug-eyed guy with a magnifying glass, to make it appear that seeing a hole or an indentation for Gore on a ballot, is somehow difficult to see.

If you want to focus your anger on something, certainly the theft of the election, the coverage after the election, the manipulation of the democratic-hive-mind recently, are all far better points than on Ralph Nader, who simply truly sees the problems with the corporate hegemony in American life, and wants to keep the issue on the table.

Dean tried to bring these issues to fore from within the party, and we see what happened to him, how the media and the DLC itself knifed him in the back, and are still twisting the knife. We had our chance to keep Nader out by voting for a candidate who would not just deal with soccer mom's and middle-income families, and instead we voted for a guy the media told us was more electable. Perhaps we should make up our own minds who's more electable, and stop allowing them to choose who we "choose."

[trumad]

1. My favorite thing about election 2000

is to listen to Nader apologists explain away the 90 thousand votes that he received in Florida.

It really is great entertainment.

[liberalmike27]

3. If

If you want to irritate both ex-Dean supporters and Nader supporters, keep assaulting his 2000 run, and trashing Nader, and calling him names. As many of you realize, he won't get much support, and he's getting a message out there that the Washington insider Democrats you posted a picture of aren't going to mention at all, the true root of all the evil in Washington, big corporate and wealthy money into elections.

But if you want to get more of his 2000 voters to go back to him, to vote for him, then keep on attacking him and his supporters.

Nader has nothing to personally gain, and will get nothing but grief, more than before for running. It has nothing to do with his ego, which would be far more served by not running than entering into such a hostile fray.

If Democrats want to quell Nader, don't attack him personally, it'll go over no better than Begala and Carvilles obvious trashing of Howard Dean on Crossfire. No what you do is take on positions attacking corporate power. But one thing you don't want to do is say you'll break up the media. You'll be shot-dead by the talking-heads in less than two-weeks.

[tomorrowsashes]

13. If the Democratic party hadn't run in 2000

If the Democratic party hadn't run in 2000, the Green party would have picked up much more votes, gotten more funding, and had a chance of winning. Nobody blames Al Gore for this. The democratic party has been around for a long time, and at no point in time have they made the fundemental changes necessary for freedom and democracy. Both parties work to prevent any real change from happening. George Bush is just another brick in the wall and, unless something drastic changes real soon, there will be many more like him. Kerry will at best delay this, and at worst, weaken opposition to it, and make it easier. I find it hard to believe that the democrats will suddenly start challenging the status quoe.

[jazzsammich]

19. well, i kinda did blame gore for that, actually.

if he was gonna run such a half-assed campaign, one in which he AGREED WITH B**H on point after point after point and quibbled over details... and if he was gonna roll over like that when the election was stolen out from under him... i was (and am) tempted to think "just get out and let somebody actually run AGAINST El Chimpo."**

one of my friends at the time had the idea of "why not let people decide whether to vote FOR somebody or AGAINST somebody? that way half the people for b**h will vote for b**h and half will vote AGAINST gore, and they'll cancel each other out. half the people for gore will vote for gore and half will vote against b**h, and they'll cancel each other out. this'll leave nader with the clear majority of remaining uncancelled votes. buchanan, on the other hand, will be the the first candidate in history to actually finish with a negative number of votes."

--jim k.

**DISCLAIMER: this post is written from the perspective of "what had i been seeing in 2000?," and not from four years of hindsight.

[jpgpenn]

2. Nader's name is already trashed beyond repair!

Wait until things start ramping up within the election!

[RichM]

4. Nader is trashed here because most posters are partisan Democrats,

which means they have a very limited view of the world, politically speaking. They don't have truth or objective analysis as goals; they have "Dem victories" as a goal. Around here, for most posters, what's good for Democrats is "good;" what's bad for Democrats is "bad."

Nader has said true things that were critical of Democrats; this makes him "bad," so he must be trashed. See how it works? Nader ran in an election against a Democrat; this makes him an "enemy."

If you are looking for objectivity & rationality on the subject of Nader, you are in the wrong place. This is the place for frothing at the mouth about Nader & equating him with Satan.

Your points are all far too rational & accurate to meet DU standards of zealous partisanship.

[ludwigb]

5. Well you are actually mischaracterizing a perfectly rational position

Nader is our opponent. He is the opponent of the only party with a chance to enact progressive change.

The idea is democracy is still to win, not to let as many voices as possible be heard and lose. This is no mere game of Risk where the more players means the more fun--conservatives and fascists are a real danger and have a real voice and have to be defeated with real strategy. Nader stands in the way of constructive change in this country and therefore, for strategic reasons deserves to be trashed. He is also a massive hypocrite, which I believe is pretty much beyond dispute.

[trumad]

6. Well said ludwigb

But the Nader knucklehead apologists just don't see it that way... They see the opponent as our ally. Partisan Democrat? What...does that mean if I wasn't partisan but yet still a Democrat then I should consider voting for the guy who's not a Democrat even tough I know that it will be helping Bush and Rove?

Ralph Nader is an opponant of the Democratic Party and therefore he needs to go down as hard as the repukes..Pure and simple!

[WitchWay]

9. The only way to enact progressive change...

is to make sure Bush and Kerry don't get in (Kucinich would be a good start...)

You think you are fighting Fascists, but the ABB strategy IS fascist. The heavy-handed peer pressure IS fascist. Fearmongering, bullying, orwellian thinking and logic...these are fascist things. Knee jerk reactions are a symptom of fascism.

Conservatives are a real danger? Because they have a real voice?
Do you want people to be voiceless? cuz, that's fascsim too.
Do you understand conservatism? You need to lay off the propaganda machine memes. Anyways, I don't buy all this conservatives are evil. Corporate candidates are evil, but there are a lot of kinds of conservatives, and I'm not going to call them all evil. I would hope that, likewise, there are conservatives who don't find liberals to be evil.

"Nader standes in the way of constructive change in this country and therefore, for strategic reasons deserves to be trashed."
Wow! Is that what Kerry did to Dean? Is that what the media and Kerry are doing to Kucinich? Just strategy. Just trash them?
WEll, I can tell you strategy like that is strategy that comes back around to bite.

I don't know, but to me...I am to the point where I'm about to prepare myself to bail ship...

[ludwigb]

23. First off

I don't think conservatives are evil. And I use the term fascist to refer to the Weimar elections in 1920s Germany, where the same tropes you use were being trotted out by the Communist party. The progressive struggle has a long history and the logic of third partyism is nothing new.

In 1920s Germany, the Communists dubbed the Social Democrats (who were analagous to today's Democrats) the Social Fascists, and argued they were no better then the Nazis. In a key presidential election, they refused to unite behind the candidate of the democratic parties, ensuring the election of the ultra-nationalist former general Hindenburg, and robbing the Republic of desicive leadership loyal to the Constitution at a key hour.

Nader is no fool--he knows the history of the Left and its tragic errors. And he should know better. And please--don't compare Dean (and Kucinich) to Nader. They have nothing in common.

[GreenPartyVoter]

16. The key word you use is "chance"

The DNC often has chances to push ahead a progressive agenda but so rarely makes use of them :(

[ludwigb]

24. What chance?

Last place I looked, the GOP has control of all functions of government. And the last time the Dems were in power, a progressive agenda was enacted (liberal SCOTUS justices, a more progressive tax code, Americorps, increased Pell Grants, constructive engagement in Isreal and Northern Ireland, Earned Income Tax Credit, the Brady Bill, the Family and Medical leave Act, National Park expansion, the introduction of RU-486, and a hell of a lot more). Had the GOP not reclaimed power in 1994, who knows what more might have been accomplished, and what unprogressive legislation might have been avoided?

See this website for a comprehensive list.
http://www.prospect.org/print/V6/20/rothstein-r.html

[jpgpenn]

8. NO most here ARE Democrats!

You see Nader isn't.

[WitchWay]

10. but when...

Kerry gets the nomination, that will be the breaking point and I am out of here for good. I have no loyalty to those who have no loyalty to me.

[jpgpenn]

11. don't let the door hit...

your ass on the way out!

[WitchWay]

12. Dont worry about me...

You'll be the one in the sinking ship, jpgpenn

[WitchWay]

7. I think it's going to be very interesting and surprising

If dems really understood Nader's base, instead of assuming its their own, and if they understood how he brings people into the political arena who would otherwise feel disenfranchised (like me!) and this way can potentially get more votes for dems at state and local levels, there wouldn't be this knee jerk anit-Nader reaction.

Some of the attacks on Nader are really out of line, so nasty and baseless. I think the kind of nearly fascist villification of Nader will end up backfiring. It sounds paranoid, fascist, mean-spirited and unfounded. In honesty, don't you think there are alot of people who support nader but are just too damn scared with all the ostracism and bullying that goes on?

There are republican members of my family who will vote Nader (and that means that (unless Kucinich wins, of course!), we can cancel out our votes for the dem/repub and get some votes for Nader instead. So, I'm okay with my decision, and I'll be happy NOT to vote for Kerry. For reasons to numerous to delve into, I don't think I could ever vote for Kerry.

I think it will be a very interesting and surprising election.

[lams712]

14. You are right on everything....

...I've been saying pretty much the same things for nearly four years now. Not only was Dean screwed, but Dennis Kucinich is right now by the Democratic "establishment".

All I can say to the establishment is IGNORE THE PROGRESSIVE WING AT YOUR PERIL.
Let's wait until November and see who came out and who didn't, and who is exploring 3rd party option and whose not.

[GreenPartyVoter]

15. Well said, but have to point out that Dennis

has tried to bring issues to the fore as well, but the DLC doesn't love him any more than they love Howard.

[Iverson]

17. absolute faith in rightward drift

The facts, which are clearly on your side here, are a trifling matter to the movers and shakers and their foamy cheerleaders.

It has been demonstrated that the mainstream parties will cheerfully join hands to excludes others, such as using rent-a-cops to keep Nader off of debate grounds to which he had a ticket. The real vitriol in our hearts cannot be reserved for the fascists because the Democratic party believes in bipartisanship and following the "center" which drifts rightward along with the discourse.

Limiting the discourse, then, becomes an article of faith too, because lefty talk impedes the foreordained direction. You cannot call it anti-liberal because liberalism is whatever you're told it is, preferably while you've shut up and gotten in line.

Of course, those who really care about ideas will engage in dissent, as you have, but don't expect a warm reception. I recommend learning all the words to "Onward Christian Soldiers."

[union_maid]

18. People who deal with real problems always knew

A lot of pain has been caused by this administration. The cutting of Section 8 housing is the kind of thing I was screaming about in 2000. This is what's happening now and the pain it's going to cause the people affected is immeasurable:

http://www.cbpp.org/2-12-04hous.htm

The pain caused by even a "slight" difference, if that difference is between a Democratic and Republican administration, is too much to ask some to bear. The reason some of us hate Nader - he knew all too well that this kind of situation would be worse under the Bush administration and decided that the poor and disabled could be cannon fodder in his revolution. Sure, if he ruled the world we'd be far better off than under any real Democratic administration, but that's not what was going to happen. One poster said the way to effect the changes we need is to make sure neither Kerry nor Bush got in, but it's going to be Bush or our nominee now and that's what it was going to be in 2000. There was never a question of that. and Nader knew it and he knew much better than the people he asked to vote for him how that was going to hurt people least able to bear it.

[kaitykaity]

20. Without Nader in the race, the contest in Florida

would not have been close enough for the Felonious Five to steal. That's the truth, there's no getting around it, Nader knew it, and he stayed in the race anyway.

That is unforgiveable, and I will not forget it either. I still have more than enough anger to go around, and Nader is a legitimate target.

[MadHound]

21. Actually you're wrong on that count kaitykaity,

Even Al From, DLC god admits that. From Blueprint magazine: "The assertion that Nader's marginal vote hurt Gore is not borne out by polling data. When exit pollers asked voters how they would have voted in a two-way race, Bush actually won by a point. That was better than he did with Nader in the race. "<http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&subid=179&contentid=2919>

Then there are other factors, like the 380,000 registered Dems, and the 190,000 self described liberal who all voted for Bush in order to double screw Gore. Why? Because Gore decided to go with his corporate masters over at BP on the issue of offshore oil drilling in the Gulf waters off of Florida.

Or the matter of disenfranchised voters that Greg Palast handed over to Gore and his team on silver platter well before the selection. Gore had a chance to win the election, banish the Bushies to the political wilderness forever, and that minor little thing, uphold his oath of office. And yet he sat on this story. I still want to know the why on the story.

Or the fact that during the recount process, Gore and his team were doing the very thing that would guarantee a Bush victory, cherry picking which counties and precincts to recount. Rather advocatin for the best method, one that would insure his victory, ie a complete statewide recount, Gore elected to recount a county here, a precinct there. And thus loss the election. As it turned out later, a complete statewide recount would have gotten him the win.

There are many reasons why Gore lost in Florida. Nader isn't one of them, he is just a convienent scapegoat for to cover for the failings of the Democrats. In fact, if Nader wasn't in the race, Bush would have done even better.

[kaitykaity]

22. The final vote total in Florida was Bush up 537.

It doesn't pass the laugh test that 537 Nader voters wouldn't have voted for Gore had Nader not been in the race.

A quote from Al From isn't really all that compelling to me. This is the other half of Reed and Co. who has presided over the Democrats' continued losing streak in Congress since 1994. These two guys helped turn Party leadership into centrist cowards.

The differece between me and the average Nader supporter is that I'll admit the above about my party. I'll even admit that Gore made mistakes.

So did Nader.

I still can't believe there are people here who won't cop to the fact that Nader helped hand 2000 to Bush. How big is that river in Egypt again?

:eyes:

[The Magistrate]

25. It Should Not Be, Ma'am

Mr. Hound has trotted out that dismal little set-piece before. Mr. From cites no authority for that statement, which in his piece is a mere throw-away line, and it contradicts all other circulated data on the subject, which suggests Wrecker Nader drew roughly two Democratic votes for each Republican one. Mr. From uses this questionable assertion of his to support the idea that if Vice President Gore had run more to the right in that election, he would have won: since it is the common assertion that running more to the left would have reduced the vote for Wrecker Nader, Mr. From wants to hobble that idea at the outset, as it is inconvenient to his ideological view.

"Kill one, warn one hundred."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"